Posted
by
timothyon Monday October 25, 2004 @02:08AM
from the mash-with-garlic-and-basil dept.

An anonymous reader writes "In this month's issue of Wired Magazine, there is an included CD featuring songs from The Beastie Boys, David Byrne, among others. The unique thing about the CD is that all of the tracks are released under Creative Commons Licences, making them legal to share."

Thats actually a good idea, with RIAA complaining that file sharing hurts the music industry by letting people get songs for free, this may promote people buying CDs again. (You hear 30 seconds of a song, you like it, you buy the CD, etc.)

No, they're not. Wired has permission from the artists and the record labels to be distributing their songs: even if some people in the RIAA think this might be a bad precedent, they can't do anything about it, because they simply have no legal case. This goes beyond a question of fair use vs. copyright infringement: it's been done with permission and it's legal, end of story.

In all the lawsuits that the RIAA has filed so far, there's been some logical basis for their case - and it's usually something like "People our using our stuff without our permission; make them stop." There's some logic in that: the RIAA makes its profit off of intellectual property that people are getting off KaZaa for free. There would be no such logic in the case that you're describing.

I don't believe that RIAA is as fanatical as the/. crowd tend to think. The RIAA is constantly looking out for thei

These songs are licensed under the Creative Commons license-- which means not only are you free to share these songs, but you're free to tinker with them. Extract samples, make new mixes, whatever. In stark contrast to the norm.

This isn't just about "good free music" (though it looks like it is that). It's about artists and labels "getting it" about what creates a culture of creativity and walking the walk.

As a point of clarification, there are several varieties of CC licenses [creativecommons.org] (one of the great things about CC), some of which specifically allow derivative works and some of which do not.

In fact, by assembling a variety of licence options under one roof and explaining the options in a consistant and coherant way (and with comics [creativecommons.org]), they go a long way to helping people really understand the issues.

The Creative Commons organization always had multiple licenses with different terms; it never meant just one thing (so the complaint was never valid). But more importantly, this matches "free software" licensing and "open source" licensing which are also varied in what is allowed and what copyright powers are retained. You can't know that a program is "free software" or "open source" and know that everything you might want to do with the work is allowed (most licenses don't cover software patents, for instance); you can't be sure what is allowed downstream for derivatives from your derivative (some licenses don't have a copyleft, for instance).

How is this new set of CC licenses new? I can't answer that for everyone, but only one thing changes for me: I host "Digital Citizen" on alternate Wednesdays from 8-10p on my local community radio station (WEFT 90.1 FM). On my show, I air only things which can be copied and distributed (at least verbatim). CC-licensed music and talks make up a good deal of my show (in the language of CC licenses, I make a "Collective" work).

The Sampling license doesn't allow the entire work to be copied and distributed. But the other sampling licenses (Sampling Plus, and Non-Commercial Sampling Plus) do allow the entire work to be copied and distributed. So, for the first time, knowing that a work is a CC-licensed work is not enough to merit inclusion in my show. I have to make sure a CC-licensed work is not licensed to me under the Sampling license.

"Creative Commons Licensed" is an annoying thing to say, because there were always a bunch of Creative Commons licenses. All it actually means is that you're allowed to do something you might not expect, and you can read a one-paragraph description and understand what you're allowed to do. A better analogy might be programs for the Mac: you don't know what the program will do, but you know it will be presented in a way familiar from other programs. Obviously, there are many different programs for the Mac.

Most of these songs are licensed for commercial sampling, but a handful aren't.

Chuck D and the Beastie Boys, two bands who have built their careers on sampling (like most of the artists on the CD) won't let you sample their work commercially. (The other band that doesn't is "My Morning Jacket", but I don't know who they are.)

The nice thing is you can give Chuck D a call and ask him about it yourself. He hosts Unfiltered [airamericaradio.com], a talk show on Air America Radio [www.airamericaradio]. I believe it airs every weekday and can be heard either on the radio in 30+ markets or via RealAudio or MS streaming.

Chuck D's been pretty vocal [rapstation.com] on the side of pro-music sharing, so I'd be interested in anyone who might ask him why he doesn't want to be sampled...

It's all to do with permission. If I sample something, and get permission to use that sample, that might well exclude me giving away permission to let other people sample my sample, if you see what I mean. No?

Ok. I sample a chunk off a record (say, the bassline from Frankie Goes To Hollywood - Relax). I get permission from ZTT to use that sample, but not to distribute it apart from my record. This effectively means I can't give people permission to sample my record, in case they sample the bit off Relax. It's a viral licensing scheme, effectively, where "closed" samples "infect" otherwise open content.

Partially true. It could depend a lot on how the sample itself is embedded in your work. Is it a backbeat that takes up most of the song, or just a guitar riff in a given section? It's easy enough to clip out a small section of guitar riffs or even a 1-min section with a particular drumroll background - so long as you know where it is.

If you really wanted "your" content to be open to sampling, you could make a statement like: the content between 1:25 and 1:51 is not open to sampling unless you acquire per

My Morning Jacket [mymorningjacket.com] ROCK. I've only seen a few bands in my many many years of seeing bands *truly* enjoy and get into what they're doing as much as these guys - and they're all really really good at their instruments. very well rehearsed (or partially psychic) and talented individuals. They rock hard when they play even though their music isn't the most rockingest. great band.

All of you should check them out, and support them if you like them by going to see them if/when they play in your town, because thats

Do these songs have samples? If that's the case, I would think it safe to assume that the owners of the original works being sampled have extended usage rights only to these artists. Beastie Boys, et al would most likely not have a legal right to extend sampling rights. And since it would be difficult to impossible to say, 'you can sample this and this part of the song, but not this part," they have to deny sampling of the entire work

I mean, I'm not trolling here, but for fuck's sake, are some people never content? If they give you a free car, will you complain that gas is not free and they have not given you the schematics for the injection system so you can improve it?

Why not? But instead of Gas being free... just give me free access to the refinery and details on how to refine it, then allow me to buy raw sweet crude by the gallon so I can make my own damn gas for pennies on the dollar.

... that would be biodiesel. Brew it yourself from waste cooking fat. If you live in a warm enough country (Scotland is warm enough for 9 months of the year) you can just filter it and pour it straight in.

He's not complaining but he is pointing to a significant (and to me surprising) note of hypocrisy coming from people who should know better. Perhaps they have pressure from other sources (record companies, lawyers) that prevented them from allowing sampling but it does seem really strange that of all people the Beasties and Chuck D would prevent it. Chuck D defended Napster back in the twentieth century, has released music under way less restrictive terms, and built his career on sampling (as did the Beasties).

The way I'm reading this is that people are complaining about the story's inaccurate reporting.

It's a good thing that these songs are being released will less restrictions than normal, it's a bad thing that slashdot is giving the impression that the songs are totally unrestricted. 2 different issues!

Every time a new Beasties album comes out, there's another lawsuit and they refine what's cutting edge for legal sampling. They've had their chops busted over what you or I would think is sane use soooo many times. Flute players who had three notes of audio sampled *after* it had been licensed. AC/DC suing over a riff used in "Rock Hard". License to Ill and Paul's Boutique were an endless headache for them..

They sign contracts to product albums and such. Their contracts don't stipulate that ALL their work is owned by the record company. They are fully able to create works on their own that aren't under the terms of the contract.

It depends on what the contract says, but AFAIK, standard recording contracts are generally exlusive and cover all recordings that the artist apears on while the contract is valid. Most of the artists on this CD (but not all) seem to be signed to small/independant companies, which should make it easier to get permission for things like this.

Of course, that only covers the rights to the recording. You'll also need permission from whoever is the copyright holder, which usually means the songwriter's publisher, rather than the songwriter.

Music, photos and film/video footage gain value the more they're heard or seen; they can't be diluted or depleted like physical property. Ultimately artists who approve sharing and sampling of their work will sell more music. Free downloading has worked well for us, a historical film archive, and led to more business. See http://www.archive.org/movies/prelinger.php.

Then how come the first time you hear a Will Smith song its okay, but then after the third week of it being played 5 times an hour or so, you never want to hear it again? (Luckily this isn't much of an issue post-y2k, he seems to not be flooding us with songs now that hes focusing on movies)

release songs under the CC, when they couldn't even release their last album without a bunch of DRM?

Plus, they're listing theirs under the 'Noncommercial Sampling Plus: Songs under this license allow noncommerical sharing and noncommercial sampling' which is fine and good for them; I'd be curious to know how many songs they've 'bitten' over the years that never got attributed.

Paul's Boutique was an excellent example of how sampling should work, and how completely new works can be made from old - that was a fantastic record.

Then we've got P. Duddy to show how old works can be ruined by 'sampling' *entire songs*. Ugh.

It IS great to see that there is some attempt at a revamp of copyright, and this CD will only increase the exposure of CC. At least until the songs get on P2P and are all mixed up with ones that are not legal to share...

Yeah, I've got mixed feelings on the B-Boys. I have been a longtime fan, spent a -shitload- of money on their CD's, and the DRM on their last one was a huge slap in the face. So my B-Boy CD collection is complete, except for their latest. Unless something changes drastically, I won't be buying any more of their stuff.

For a band with "'tude", who are built their little empire on "rhymin' and stealin'", releasing a DRM'd CD, then telling their fans, "it's not us, dude, get over it" was the height of hypocrisy.

Yeah, I'm a little bitter.

It's going to take more than a little publicity stunt like this to make up for what they did, releasing one track under a non-commercial-only sampling license is a pretty weak apology.

...
when they couldn't even release their last album without a bunch of DRM?

It could be legal problems -- If they live by sampling, they'll have to get the rights to release the samples that they're using.. They may not have been able to get a release for anything more than non-commercial sampling.

As for the flip-flop, they may be experimenting to see which approach sells more records, or they may be trying to get back into the good books of all the fans they would have pissed off with a DRM'ed CD.

release songs under the CC, when they couldn't even release their last album without a bunch of DRM?

According to their statement, all of the albums released by their label outside of.us and.uk (IIRC) have the copy protection on it. I'm not saying that the copy protection was a good thing, but it's not as if the group sat down and decided to use it, it was forced on them.

Plus, they're listing theirs under the 'Noncommercial Sampling Plus: Songs under this license allow noncommerical sharing and noncommercial sampling' which is fine and good for them; I'd be curious to know how many songs they've 'bitten' over the years that never got attributed.

I don't know for sure, but it may be that songs on the album use samples whose license forbids resampling.

"According to their statement, all of the albums released by their label outside of.us and.uk (IIRC) have the copy protection on it. I'm not saying that the copy protection was a good thing, but it's not as if the group sat down and decided to use it, it was forced on them."

That last little bit "it was forced on them." They had to willingly sign the contract which allowed it to be "forced" on them. If the actual contract was "forced" on them by threat of violence it's considered void anyway. I think

The RECORD COMPANY is the one who created the DRM for the Beastie Boys album. If memory serves correct, the B-boys release of "to the 5 boroughs" in the UK and in Canada have DRM on them, not the release in the US. I beleive that is because their record label DRMs ALL albums in those markets.

Do you *REALLY* think that the Beastie Boys have the power to tell their record label what to do? Those tricky T&C of contracts tend make the band release the album in accordance with what the label wants. Hen

IIRC, the US copyright law explicitly allow some kind of sampling as fair use. I don't remember the criteria, and there is a thin borderline between fair use and infringement. But impression has it that copyright law is more permissive than the proposed Noncommercial Sampling Plus license.

Metallica are selling FLACs of their live concerts here [livemetallica.com]. In their FAQ they acknowledge that they know they aren't DRM protected and can be shared.

The main problem with this is Slashdot itself. When I discovered this at least six months ago I thought this was pretty major news as Metallica were one of the main, vocal opponents of DRM free music, which of course means it easily can be distributed via P2P file sharing. Do you think my Slashdot submission was noticed ? I don't ever remember seeing it.

Maybe Slashdot has secretly been taken over by RIAA, and don't want Metallica's change of heart to be known about by anti-DRM proponents.

In their FAQ they acknowledge that they know they aren't DRM protected and can be shared.

Not to nitpick, but your post almost makes it sound like Metallica went the next step and authorized sharing of these concerts. They haven't. They do have a site called Metallica Vault [metallicavault.com] which I was about to say had three shows when the St. Anger album was released and probably will never be updated again, but I look now and see that they have, apparently, put new shows up. They do allow and supposedly encourage people

The evolution of The Beastie Boys'
consciousness is truly amazing,
almost unbelievable.
Their last album silently installed DRM code [slashdot.org] and now it is released under a Creative Commons Licence for everyone to share! Isn't it wonderful that
there are people who really can listen to our community and
adapt to the information era instead of trying to halt the progress
like the RIAA? This CD will be a perfect Christmas gift
for anyone who doesn't realize that not every rights are "reserved"
and that copying and sharing is not inherently illegal.
Anyone got a torrent link?

Another perfect Christmas gift would be a copy of the magazine; which includes the CD and an excellent article explaining the licensing. That issue also includes a companion article regarding Open Source in Brazil.

Is it possible to order only that one issue of Wired internationally instead of subscribing for 12 months? I would like to get few copies of that CD for Xmas gifts for my DJ friends for sampling but I don't want to buy like ten subscriptions for $700!:( Any way to get only this one issue to central Europe before Xmas? Thanks!

Is it possible to order only that one issue of Wired internationally instead of subscribing for 12 months?

I don't know of any way to order single issues online. Perhaps you could find someone to buy issues off a newstand and ship them.

Or maybe you can find someone to burn a CD for you. I know it's not the same as having a nicely labeled official copy (although the real label is pretty bland), but hey, this is one of the few times that we can suggest that a CD be opening copied and shared (viva Creativ

The file sharing client Morpheus supports Creative Commons, and properly tagged mp3s are recognized in search results in the client. Creative Commons will soon begin tagging all their mp3 files in the Copyright id3 tag. On Morpheus, you can even search 'cc:sampling' and 'cc:sharing', and you'll find and be able to download all properly tagged Creative Commons content.

I'm afraid certain people will be tagging actually illegal-to-share content as legal-to-share.

In the United States, it's a tort and a crime to falsify a license notice (17 USC 1202 [cornell.edu]). A label would have even bigger grounds to sue people who fraudulently mark a work as CC licensed than it would against the average file-sharing app user, and investigation into such offenses would have the backing of both the FBI (for copyright fraud) and a State's investigatory agency (for fraud in general).

Who sanctioned this CD? Most artists when they're signed to a label aren't allowed to perform for anyone else without the label's permission. That's why on every Garbage CD it says "Shirley Manson appears courtesy of..." - She's licensed to Garbage by her record label (or something like that).

So this means that all of these artists are appearing here with the permission of the record labels, though there may be a few exceptions.

An artist like the Beastie Boys can negotiate a favorable record contract with a smaller label. David Bowie does this. He sold the future royalties to all of his songs (it's amazing that he had them in the first place), and now only works with smaller record labels that are happy to have him because he's gauranteed sales, and in exchange they give him complete creative control. It's just a small step to negotiating ownership of your music as well.

An artist like Zap Mama (an excellent group, by the way) may, by virtue of being small, be able to negotiate a favorable contract because they may be able to generate income from things like touring, giving lessons and workshops and so forth, so having a record contract is just a matter of distribution more than promotion... I'm not saying this is the case for Zap Mama, they're actually fairly big, especially outside of the United States, but *perhaps* they could do this kind of thing.

But.... odds are it didn't happen this way. Odds are the record company *owns* the rights to all of these songs, and *the record company* decided to release these songs under creative commons. As ar as they're concerned, the artists may not even have needed to be asked do this.

The question then becomes - why would they do something like this? Are they being foward thinking? Didn't Apple just come out with an ipod pre-loaded with U2 songs? Could it be that the record labels are finally attempting new channels of distribution and figuring out new ways of making money in the digital age?

Another poster praised the Beasty Boys for their ability to change, and surely the Beasty Boys had *some* input into what went on their CD, and some input over the release of their songs under Creative Commons. What I want to know is - how much? And how much was the label.

For those of you that don't know CreativeCommons also has a content search function for material released under one of the CC licenses. Submitted links are reviewed by CC before they'll add the material to their listings. Just follow the link labled Content.

When I listed my material there CC vaulted to the top of my referrer list in just a couple weeks.

I find it rather ironic that with the "legal to share!" hyperbole you have to buy a friggin magazine to get it!?

Where are the download links on the site, Wired!? sheesh

I know, I know "It's a business, they need to make money", yadda yadda - but one of the biggest points of opening intellectual property in music is that the Internet makes so much more sense as a distribution medium, rather than shipping CDs.

The inclusion of a David Byrne track in this "freely distributable" compilation might seem more interesting when you bear in mind that a song of his ("Like Humans Do") was one of the sample tracks included with..... Windows XP.

So are the forces are good and evil in a battle for his immortal soul... or is he just someone who likes to promote his music as much as possible?

The Regents of the University of California are responsible for permitting Microsoft's use of the BSD networking stack in some older versions of Windows. Does this mean you've lost respect for UC Berkeley?

Very cute... I assume you refer to the BSD licensing.

If that *had been* what I'd meant, then ultimately Byrne would be responsible in any case, since he freely chose to sign a contract that (directly or possibly very indirectly) resulted in Microsoft getting use of his music.

AMPAS (the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences) [oscars.org], aka "The Academy," has been watching and fretting over these kinds of developments in the music industry (--All the more so since this upending of the music biz is happening right after the studios (and/or their owners) spent a couple decades devouring just about every music company they could find and stomach.) There is a whole thicket of contractual and union entanglements with movies -- for example, actors in the Screen Actors Guild and directors

The MPAA organizes the Rating System, and the RIAA awards whether an album goes Gold or Platinum. They also do a lot of lobbying.

And to fund this they sue people...

The above have nothing to do with providing a service. They are only furthering their own interests. If RIAA and the equivalent organisations world wide label certain albums as gold or platinum, they become more desireable to people who in turn buy more. Film classification is also about having a marketable product for people who have younger

Thats exactly what you form an association for. You form associations with like minded individuals to discuss, promote, organize and lobby on behalf of your interests.

The association (in this case the MPAA) provides a service to its members. If you think the money they make from suing people covers the costs of thier operations you are probably too naive to walk outside without an escort.

Members of the RIAA and MPAA pay for the priviledge of being members. In return they get access to a powerful

"Vorbii" is not the correct plural of "Vorbis". You see, Vorbis is not a second declension masculine noun as is often assumed, but rather a rare 4th declension neutre. In extant literature it was only used in its singular form -- obviously in the glory days of Rome Vorbis could not have been associated with a popular digital music format, and rather described the feeling that one has when one hears a pleasant sound. Understandably, this noun was uncountable and as such was never seen in the plural.

Therefore, when constructing the plural for this noun, you should use the widely accepted English plural, namely, "Vorbises".

Well, before the phonograph, musicians had to *gasp* PERFORM to make money. Then came a sort of golden age, where you could theoretically make a few records, then sit on your ass and watch the money roll in. Now it seems like that golden age is coming to an end, forcing artists who can't perform live out of business. A good development, IMHO.

In the 1850s, when P.T. Barnum sponsored Jenny Lind's tour of the states, revenue from ticket sales was only part of the deal, there were lucrative product endorsements, sheet music sales, etc., etc. Lind had an international reputation, but Barnum's instinct for promotion drove profits from the tour to dizzying heights (front row seats selling for something like $150 gold dollars) and Lind was free to marry and retire at thirty as an independently wealthy young woman.